Jump to content

smallspy

CPTDB Wiki Editor
  • Content Count

    10,182
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Toronto, Ont.

Recent Profile Visitors

18,509 profile views
  1. They did. The capacity of the 3 yards is enough to store the current fleet plus the 60 more. If you go back and see those original 2009-era documents for the streetcar tender and the design of Leslie, you'll see that. But none of that reduces deadhead costs to routes in the middle of the City or to St. Clair. That's where the carhouse at Hillcrest comes in. So the TTC is pulling a bit of institutional slight-of-hand - and certainly not the first time that they've done so, and likely not the last - in order to squeeze a little more money out of the upper levels of govern
  2. The issue is not that it was a knife, it's size, or that it was a gift. It's the tacit acknowledgement of the company in charge that they can be used, even if just a visual signal, by someone who frankly is not trained to use it. Dan
  3. It's a basic rule, yes. But it also happens to work for the vast majority of the time - which is why it's a rule. You've actually touched on one of the biggest concerns about far-side stops - the double stop. Not because it costs them time (averaged over a whole route, and over the course of a service day, it doesn't), but because people get frustrated by the fact that they are so close to where they need to be, and can see it even, but still can't access it yet. Again, assuming all else being equal - and without transit priority - averaged over the course of the who
  4. That only works, however, in concert with functional signal priority. If there is no signal priority, than there no difference in having near-side or far-side stops. The location of the stop doesn't change the likelihood of a vehicle coming to an intersection and having to stop due to the signals. Dan
  5. First off.....I think that it's amusing that you think that I'm "riled up" about this. Second off.....I enjoy your attempt to brush off criticism - without any attempt to rebut against the criticisms themselves - by using the same sort of language and attitude that Metrolinx displays. If you think that I am the only one making these same criticisms than you are sorely mistaken. There are a lot of people in the various industries that engage with Metrolinx on a regular basis that have the same concerns. There are people who work for Metrolinx that have the same concerns.
  6. That whole passage could be easily summed into a single sentence - maybe two - and still be completely true and accurate. In fact, the paragraph written in red is not only the crux of their whole argument, but frankly the only one that actually contains any real information as to why their decision was made. That last paragraph is particular galling as the reason that they are giving for making the station and yard above ground is because all of our other yards are already above ground(!). As if "all of our others are all that way!!1!" really makes for a valid reason to do anything
  7. This passage just reinforces my disdain for this organization. It is so full of marketing wank, obfuscation and boosterism as to make a trader blush. Dan
  8. Of all the plans thrown about for this extension, at least the 2 most recent ones called for a large bus terminal underground. One version was a cruciform shape right under the intersection of Yonge and Steeles, and the most recent one that I can recall was a long, east-west alignment that featured ramps in the middle of Steeles east and west of Yonge for access. So yeah, an underground terminal here definitely seems to be in play. Dan
  9. It is, in part. It's also because they are still having issues with people not lining up in the appropriate locations on the platforms, and so they need to wait for them. Dan
  10. VIA Rail released a video yesterday showing the Siemens trainsets in production, and a rendering of what is likely to be the final version of the paint scheme of the trains. https://twitter.com/VIA_Rail/status/1377251391593398272 https://fb.watch/4BvrdSjN69/
  11. In fairness, they wouldn't have been that much closer. I had heard about the pole/wire rumour as well - but the problem is that they still hadn't (and haven't) finalized an OCS design. If they had put poles into the ground in 2018, there was a 50-50 chance that they would have to pull them back out to do them properly when the time came to finish the system. Dan
  12. Historically, the plans have been even more variable than that. If you go back into the mid-1980s the TTC was looking at buying anywhere up to about 76 ALRVs to replace what was left of the PCC fleet. The order ended up at 52 units, but even until a year or two before the last one was delivered there were serious discussions with the TTC, UTDC and the Provincial Government to find more funding to buy more of them and replace what was left of the PCCs. Of course, the PCCs that were still in service at that point were stretched so thin and were so far gone that the TTC di
  13. The overhead wire in San Fran for many years was a weird mix of stuff as they transitioned from the PCCs to the Boeing-Vertols. And even before that, it was done in many places in Europe, although frequently with lyres rather than pantographs early on. As for pantograph retrofits, yes, it's absolutely possible. But it also requires a bit of strengthening in the roof across the ribs to stiffen the structure against the additional dead weight and loads. Dan
  14. So long as the bottom contact surface of the contact wire is below the hanger, there is nothing wrong with using the old hangers. An additional span wire or two may be required to prevent twisting, but that is all. There are some really old designs of hanger where the contact wire was held at the same level as the span wires, but there were very few of them left in service even 10 years ago. Dan
  15. The problem is not that "people might not like that". The problem is that the photos may not have been cleared to be released publicly. They may show things that shouldn't be shown to the public. They may have been sent to you by someone who is not supposed to be sending them, and so spreading them around may put them into an awkward - or worse, compromised - position. People have been fired for this kind of thing. Unless you have been given explicit permission to share them, the best thing to do is not to. Dan
×
×
  • Create New...